Cover not available
Review published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 12:1 (2004) ► pp.181–189
Book review

Adrian Pilkington. Poetic Effects: A Relevance Theory Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000. xii + 202 pp. ISBN 90 272 5090 1

Reviewed by
| Tel Aviv University
Published online: 10 June 2004
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.12.1.15ben
References (24)
References
Benari, M. 2000. Cognitive Aspects of Metaphorical Phenomena (in Hebrew). Ph.D. Dissertation submitted to Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Bergman, M. 1982. “Metaphorical assertions”. The Philosophical Review 91(2): 229–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Black, M. 1979. “How metaphors work: A reply to Donald Davidson”. Critical Inquiry 6(1): 131–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boswell, D. S. 1986. “Speakers’ intentions: Constraints on metaphor comprehension”. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1(3): 153–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burgess, C. and Chiarello, C. 1996. “Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying metaphor comprehension and other figurative language”. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 11(1): 67–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. and Faust, M. E. 1990. “The role of suppression in sentence comprehension”. In G. B. Simpson (ed), Understanding Word and Sentence. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 97–128.Google Scholar
1991. “The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 17(2): 245–262.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. and Robertson, R. W. 1995. “Reading skill and suppression revisited”. Psychological Science 6(3): 165–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R. 1997. “Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis”. Cognitive Linguistics 7(1): 183–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R. and Fein, O. 1999. “On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language”. Journal of Pragmatics 31(12): 1601–1618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Miller, D. T. 1986. “Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives”. Psychological Review 93(2): 136–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sloman, A. 1987. “Motives, mechanisms and emotions”. Cognition and Emotion 1(3): 217–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. D. and Kemler-Nelson, D. G. 1984. “Overall similarity in adults classification: The child in all of us”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113(1): 137–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988. “Is the more impulsive child a more holistic processor? A reconsideration”. Child Development 59(3): 719–727. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. D. and Shapiro, J. H. 1989. “The occurrence of holistic categorization”, Journal of Memory and Language. 28(4): 386–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steen, G. 1994. Understanding Metaphor in Literature: An Empirical Approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sweeney, D. 1979. “Lexical access during comprehension: (Re)consideration of effects”. Journal of Verbal learning and Verbal Behavior 18(6): 645–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsur, R. 1978. “Emotion, emotional qualities, and poetry”. Psychocultural Review 21: 165–180.Google Scholar
1987. On Metaphoring. Tel-Aviv: Israel Science Publishers.Google Scholar
1992. Toward a Theory of Cognitive Poetics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. On the Shore of Nothingness. Thorverton, Essex: Imprint, Academic Press.
Tsur, R. and Benari, M. 2001. “‘Composition of place’, experiential set, and the meditative poem: A cognitive-pragmatic approach”. Pragmatics and Cognition 9(2): 203–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vosniadou, S. and Ortony, A. 1989. “Similarity and analogical reasoning: A synthesis”. In S. Vosniadou and A. Ortony (eds), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–17.Google Scholar